There's a certain class of film, especially hailing from the 30s, 40s, or 50s, that is enjoyable but doesn't make any major impression. It's a crapshoot as to the quality of the storytelling, the sound design, the image quality, and any comedy or drama that is intended; some examples are distinctly better or worse than others. Well made as 'Atlantic adventure' is, I think it's a fairly "middle of the road" title. I had a modestly good time watching, but it's "nothing to write home about" as the saying goes, and it's probably best reserved as something light for a lazy day.
John T. Neville, Nat Dorfman, and Diana Bourbon penned a story that's pretty smart in the broad strokes, with some fine wit. Protagonist Dan Miller is far less than likable, in a variety of ways, but in a tale of mix-ups, missed cues, mistaken identities, and ambition exceeding capability, not to mention many moving parts, the situation Miller stumbles his way into is primed for consistent (if moderate) entertainment. I appreciate the set design, at least one instance of which is especially sharp, and cinematographer John Stumar and editor Ted J. Kent both put in some good work. The acting is unremarkable, but most suitable.
All this is well and good. Yet whether one wishes to place responsibility on the shoulders of the writers or of director Albert S. Rogell, the picture carries itself with such a flat, almost blasé tone that it's almost never even given a chance to strike a chord. There is plenty of light humor, but not in the protagonist's buffoonery as is intended, and the most 'Atlantic adventure' can often achieve is getting a few happy neurons to fire off (only one laugh is forthcoming, and only one smile), even with silent star Harry Langdon present. The crime drama angle is duly engaging, but there is no thrill to be found, and the only baseline excitement we get is at the climax when more definitive, palpable energy finally, belatedly characterizes the proceedings. Given weak identification of characters and plot development in addition to the unhelpful tenor, one must actively work to remain attentive or else the details of the narrative will entirely pass us by. Rather emphasizing the point, some dialogue given to Langdon within the last ten minutes, loosely summarizing the plot up to that point, is better elucidation of the whole than the writing otherwise musters.
All the right pieces are here for what should be a fun, satisfying crime comedy. And, well, it is fun and satisfying, to a degree; it's just also very forgettable, and after watching one can move on with their day as though they hadn't watched at all. It's hard to even pinpoint specific issues, though as the last stretch of the runtime demonstrates, the vibrancy that the feature otherwise lacks is a big one. I would also suggest that if protagonist Miller had been written differently - if he weren't quite as unlikable, or alternatively, if he faced actual consequences for his terrible behavior - then the humor that surrounded the chief character might have met with more success. I still think this is passable, but it's difficult to give a particularly high recommendation. 'Atlantic adventure' is okay, but it would stand taller and be more memorable if it weren't so middling for far too much of its length.
John T. Neville, Nat Dorfman, and Diana Bourbon penned a story that's pretty smart in the broad strokes, with some fine wit. Protagonist Dan Miller is far less than likable, in a variety of ways, but in a tale of mix-ups, missed cues, mistaken identities, and ambition exceeding capability, not to mention many moving parts, the situation Miller stumbles his way into is primed for consistent (if moderate) entertainment. I appreciate the set design, at least one instance of which is especially sharp, and cinematographer John Stumar and editor Ted J. Kent both put in some good work. The acting is unremarkable, but most suitable.
All this is well and good. Yet whether one wishes to place responsibility on the shoulders of the writers or of director Albert S. Rogell, the picture carries itself with such a flat, almost blasé tone that it's almost never even given a chance to strike a chord. There is plenty of light humor, but not in the protagonist's buffoonery as is intended, and the most 'Atlantic adventure' can often achieve is getting a few happy neurons to fire off (only one laugh is forthcoming, and only one smile), even with silent star Harry Langdon present. The crime drama angle is duly engaging, but there is no thrill to be found, and the only baseline excitement we get is at the climax when more definitive, palpable energy finally, belatedly characterizes the proceedings. Given weak identification of characters and plot development in addition to the unhelpful tenor, one must actively work to remain attentive or else the details of the narrative will entirely pass us by. Rather emphasizing the point, some dialogue given to Langdon within the last ten minutes, loosely summarizing the plot up to that point, is better elucidation of the whole than the writing otherwise musters.
All the right pieces are here for what should be a fun, satisfying crime comedy. And, well, it is fun and satisfying, to a degree; it's just also very forgettable, and after watching one can move on with their day as though they hadn't watched at all. It's hard to even pinpoint specific issues, though as the last stretch of the runtime demonstrates, the vibrancy that the feature otherwise lacks is a big one. I would also suggest that if protagonist Miller had been written differently - if he weren't quite as unlikable, or alternatively, if he faced actual consequences for his terrible behavior - then the humor that surrounded the chief character might have met with more success. I still think this is passable, but it's difficult to give a particularly high recommendation. 'Atlantic adventure' is okay, but it would stand taller and be more memorable if it weren't so middling for far too much of its length.